The main point of the ad, honestly, sounds pretty legitimate to me. Obama's kids are protected by weapons, why should your kids not be?

Also, it's really interesting that the ad actually uses the term 'gun free zones' as something bad. Even though I've long thought that the idea of a 'gun free zone' ultimately just meant 'nobody has guns... except violent criminals', it's still surprising to me that the NRA would be willing to demonize such a nice-sounding phrase.

Difference between the children of the most powerful man in the world, who are in danger of assassination, hostage taking, etc. and ordinary citizens surely? Way to be over simplistic NRA and not address the real issues. I'd hate to live in a world where schools are guarded by mercenaries, sounds more like a 1984 state than the idea of not having any guns at all.

the NRA is in the complete right, if he is gonna pass gun laws by bypassing congress (which is a huge taboo but will probably get overturned by congress or the supreme court anyways) he still gets Secret Service protection for 10 years (something about state secrets and them not be secrets after so long so he isn't worth shit after that or something or another) after the day he gets out of office, so if he wants to be high on his horses the mother fucker should lead by example if he wants to ban semi-autos when he will be surrounded by them for another 10 years.

all in the name for some bullshit emotional kneejerk reaction because people die and use others as scape goats (IE gun owners).

At 1/18/13 08:44 AM, Fim wrote:
Difference between the children of the most powerful man in the world, who are in danger of assassination, hostage taking, etc. and ordinary citizens surely?

Ordinary school children aren't in danger of being killed?

Not in the same league as Obama's kids you moron.

I love how the NRA is making a point out of something that is so blatantly self evident. Obama's kids are a high profile target so they get adequate protection. Are American audience's that dumb that they buy into this crap?

1. A universal background check on anyone wanting to buy a gun.
2. Restoring a ban on assault style assault weapons, and a 10 round limit for magazines.
3. Clarity in leadership with the Alcohol, Tobacco & Firearms branch so they can prosecute more people who buy guns legally specifically to sell on to people illegally, like criminals or non American citizens.

Would love to know your reaction. To me it seems completely reasonable.

At 1/18/13 09:01 AM, Tony-DarkGrave wrote:
the NRA is in the complete right, if he is gonna pass gun laws by bypassing congress (which is a huge taboo but will probably get overturned by congress or the supreme court anyways) he still gets Secret Service protection for 10 years (something about state secrets and them not be secrets after so long so he isn't worth shit after that or something or another) after the day he gets out of office, so if he wants to be high on his horses the mother fucker should lead by example if he wants to ban semi-autos when he will be surrounded by them for another 10 years.

all in the name for some bullshit emotional kneejerk reaction because people die and use others as scape goats (IE gun owners).

Actually, a law was passed not long ago giving all presidents, including him, protection for life.

At 1/18/13 09:27 AM, UltraHammer wrote:

Ordinary school children aren't in danger of being killed?

they are, but you gotta remember, those are poor kids, a dime a dozen, and not worth defending. There is a reason why congress won't move to protect school children. their children don't go to the same schools, so there's no reason to spend political capital to protect them.

At 1/18/13 10:10 AM, CaveStoryGrounds wrote:

At 1/18/13 10:00 AM, Fim wrote:
Are American audience's that dumb that they buy into this crap?

Ever heard of Fox News? Yeah...they are.

Ever heard of MSNBC? yeah, people are incredibly stupid.

I find the amusing part of this whole thing is people took Obama's bullshit, hook, line, and sinker. he spouted more lies on "assault weapons" than I could take seriously. assault weapon bullets inflicting maximum damage? right.... nice for emotional appeal, but no basis in reality, Of course, given that the media has proven time and time again, and recently with this whole Manti Te'o and his nonexistent girlfriend dying, that reality doesn't even matter, that the story is all that counts.

Might as well begin putting the news in the fiction section. I read the Onion for a reason. I can trust the Onion to fill me full of lies and make me laugh. the real news only fills me full of lies.

At 1/18/13 11:46 AM, Fim wrote:
1. A universal background check on anyone wanting to buy a gun.
2. Restoring a ban on assault style assault weapons, and a 10 round limit for magazines.
3. Clarity in leadership with the Alcohol, Tobacco & Firearms branch so they can prosecute more people who buy guns legally specifically to sell on to people illegally, like criminals or non American citizens.

Would love to know your reaction. To me it seems completely reasonable.

I'm happy about 1 and 3, on 2 I'm neutral.

The ATF has been weakened for years by people like the NRA, then of course when they make one mistake in one operation out of many everyone assumes they are useless and deliberately giving criminals guns.

I thought something like one was already around, weather it was or not it seems like a common sense idea IMO.

I have no objections to two, but I also find no reason support it. I'm open to hear other arguments for/against it.

“You only live twice: Once when you're born, and once when you look death in the face.”

At 1/18/13 09:27 AM, UltraHammer wrote:
Ordinary school children aren't in danger of being killed?

I thought the NRA nuts were saying how incredibly rare it is for kids to be victims of gun violence and how gun control measures wouldn't do a damn thing to stop it, but now all of the sudden kids are in danger because Obama has armed security for his kids and my god why don't we! Why does he get to ride in a fancy limo and live in a fancy house at tax payer expense? That's not fair!

At 1/18/13 11:58 AM, Korriken wrote:
Actually, a law was passed not long ago giving all presidents, including him, protection for life.

Makes sense, considering how many presidents have been assassinated again? and there are still plenty stupid, violent of people who resent having a black man in charge. Every president has had security.

At 1/18/13 09:27 AM, UltraHammer wrote:

they are, but you gotta remember, those are poor kids, a dime a dozen, and not worth defending. There is a reason why congress won't move to protect school children. their children don't go to the same schools, so there's no reason to spend political capital to protect them.

The majority of kids are not at risk at all. 77 million kids went to school on that day at Sandy Hooky. Quit trying to sound like you're a struggling martyr here who's being oppressed by government. It's not about being hypocritical here, it's about who is logically more at risk than somebody else, it's pretty obvious.

At 1/18/13 10:10 AM, CaveStoryGrounds wrote:

Ever heard of MSNBC? yeah, people are incredibly stupid.

I find the amusing part of this whole thing is people took Obama's bullshit, hook, line, and sinker. he spouted more lies on "assault weapons" than I could take seriously. assault weapon bullets inflicting maximum damage? right.... nice for emotional appeal, but no basis in reality, Of course, given that the media has proven time and time again, and recently with this whole Manti Te'o and his nonexistent girlfriend dying, that reality doesn't even matter, that the story is all that counts.

What is bullshit about what he's proposing? All that Obama is trying to implement is a very sensible set of measures for a real problem people face. Please tell me what you've got a problem with.

Are you saying you DON'T want proper checks done on people buying firearms? What grounds to you have to oppose that? It's completely reasonable so you don't sell guns to people with criminal records. The other proposals are perfecting reasonable to, people who sell guns illegal should be brought to justice, and nobody can justify owning an assault weapon for self defense.

You mean that just because there are people who disagree with your personal views, that they are automatically buying propaganda? I guess your alternative is that you just do nothing and ignore the homicides and school shootings.

Might as well begin putting the news in the fiction section. I read the Onion for a reason. I can trust the Onion to fill me full of lies and make me laugh. the real news only fills me full of lies.

I know. Its hard to believe, what with the Newtown shootings making up the entirety (or almost the entirety) of murders in school in 2012... How many elemntary age students weren't killed in school last year? How many elementary age kids were killed by their parents? How many elementary age kids were killed outside of school?

So, again, how exactly are schools not the safest place for kids?

At 1/18/13 02:24 PM, LemonCrush wrote:
It does create a bit of hypocrisy.

Except not.

Obama: You can't have assault weapons. Btw, me, my home, family, and cars are allowed to be protected by guns. You though. No guns for you.

Everyone would still be allowed to be protected by guns. The right to own firearms would still exist. So your entire point fails.

The majority of kids are not at risk at all. 77 million kids went to school on that day at Sandy Hooky. Quit trying to sound like you're a struggling martyr here who's being oppressed by government. It's not about being hypocritical here, it's about who is logically more at risk than somebody else, it's pretty obvious.

I smell a zombie.. that you? I never mentioned anything about being a martyr. I also never mentioned anything about Obama or his children not needing protection.

What is bullshit about what he's proposing? All that Obama is trying to implement is a very sensible set of measures for a real problem people face. Please tell me what you've got a problem with.

so... kids are safe in school and there's no problem, but we gotta ban 'assault weapons' to protect kids in school because they're not safe, which is a problem. got it.

his 'measures' don't do a lick of good to protect anyone. his 'measures' are feel good in nature, intended to boost his approval rating and make it look like he actually did something.

Gun control isn't going to stop deranged nuts from killing people. the kids at sandy hook were LUCKY he used a gun and not, say, pipe bombs. a fist full of pipe bombs could leave several rooms full of dead children in a very short amount of time.

once we ban guns, we may very well find nuts making and using bombs to attack others. easy to make too. I've constructed a couple myself, just to get an idea on how powerful they can be. a pipe bomb could easily render a classroom full of students dead and dying within moments. wouldn't even have to aim it. just light the bomb, open the door, toss it towards the center of the room, shut the door and duck. boom. dead people.

then what? you gonna ban metal pipe?

Are you saying you DON'T want proper checks done on people buying firearms? What grounds to you have to oppose that? It's completely reasonable so you don't sell guns to people with criminal records. The other proposals are perfecting reasonable to, people who sell guns illegal should be brought to justice, and nobody can justify owning an assault weapon for self defense.

the more pressing question is, what grounds does the government have TO do background checks? regardless, i do support background checks on people buying guns. Of course, I also support people's mental health being part of that background check. but that wouldn't have stopped the sandy hook incident either, given his mother didn't have mental disorders.

also, you say no one can justify.. whatever. i don't HAVE to justify anything to anyone. the government's insistence on banning 'assault weapons' as been stated multiple times, if is a blindfold they pull over the eyes of the mindless sheep to conceal the REAL problem, which is the breakdown of society. things that were once virtues are being demonized, things like self control, temperance, and honesty. these things are being replaced with things like hedonism arrogance and the insatiable need for drama. there is no impetus for being a hard worker, or to apply yourself in order to better yourself. drug addiction runs rampant and the media glorifies everything wrong with the country, like teen pregnancy, drug addiction and various other vices, as well as criminal activities.

you can ban anything you want, won't help. look at how well the government's ban on narcotics is going. you think criminals can't get weapons? think again. long as society remains the way it is, the school killings will continue.

You mean that just because there are people who disagree with your personal views, that they are automatically buying propaganda? I guess your alternative is that you just do nothing and ignore the homicides and school shootings.

but schools are safe, remember? you said it yourself. there is no risk. you said it yourself.
buying propaganda is when someone tells you a half truth or a blatant lie for political reasons and you buy in to it. Kinda like the way you're doing now. banning assault weapons won't stop homicides. banning all weapons won't stop homicides. the only way to stop homicide is to change society. problem is, government likes society the way it is. blind, stupid, and violent.

At 1/18/13 02:47 PM, Fim wrote:
You have the critical faculties of a fucking child. Obama (and his kids by default) have had a list of assassination attempts made against them, and if you can't understand why his security needs are different from average americans then you are a fucking moron.

What you're saying is, threats on Obama's life warrant protection with weapons, but threats to my, or my families life, does not.

His security needs are not different from anyone's. He wants his kids to not die. So does everyone else. Just because he's got a high profile family, does not permit him to special privileges, especially when he's trying to take those same privileges away from others.

3. Clarity in leadership with the Alcohol, Tobacco & Firearms branch so they can prosecute more people who buy guns legally specifically to sell on to people illegally, like criminals or non American citizens.

the ATF is highly ineffective and more trouble than there worth, they have more shit on their record, and the fact they are very intrusive with their power worries me. Ruby Ridge, Waco, Fast and Furious, Illegal seizure of firearms of firearms from people when coming out of gun shows

Would love to know your reaction. To me it seems completely reasonable.

there it is but im not fully cohorent due to the fact I still need 3 more hours of sleep and probably made grammar errors.

It's downright retarded and shows exactly whats wrong with current politics. Usually when something like this happens you disagree with a solution and come up with your own, this is downright ignoring the problem exists in the first place, which is the first step of solving a problem. Instead of arguing the solution there's merely more logical fallacies to manipulate people. Now the NRA has given its own solutions, but they themselves are horrible and don't work and the NRA knows hence why they launch desperate ads like this. How about instead of drawing yourself closer to those people who think Newtown was a hoax you try to distance yourself from them and propose an alternative.

At 1/18/13 09:01 AM, Tony-DarkGrave wrote:
all in the name for some bullshit emotional kneejerk reaction because people die and use others as scape goats (IE gun owners).

Are you talking about Newtown or this ad?

"If you don't mind smelling like peanut butter for two or three days, peanut butter is darn good shaving cream.
" - Barry Goldwater.

At 1/18/13 03:06 AM, Feoric wrote:
You think this hits Obama "really really hard"? That a head of state has armed guards protecting his children? Who are high profile targets?

If they can't defend the presidents children with out guns, how you supposed to protect your own? If the police need guns to protect themselves, with all of their training and body armor, how are you supposed to protect yourself when they aren't there?

Why shouldn't average people be allowed the means to protect themselves while "important" people get more than the average person could normally afford to? are they better than us? do they deserve to live more than we do?

Are we really going to ponder why the children of the President of the United States has armed security in their schools, and why the children of Joe Schmoe from Bumblefuck, USA likely does not? Is the answer to this question not blatantly obvious?

It's not surprising to me in the least, though, especially coming from the NRA. Remember when that slippery piece of shit Wayne LaPierre tried shifting the causes of the Newton shooting on old video games? And a 10 year old flash game? From this site? They sure do help this country out a lot.

At 1/18/13 09:02 PM, Feoric wrote:
Are we really going to ponder why the children of the President of the United States has armed security in their schools, and why the children of Joe Schmoe from Bumblefuck, USA likely does not? Is the answer to this question not blatantly obvious?

before Obamas kids went there there were no armed security. hmmm.

It's not surprising to me in the least, though, especially coming from the NRA. Remember when that slippery piece of shit Wayne LaPierre tried shifting the causes of the Newton shooting on old video games? And a 10 year old flash game? From this site? They sure do help this country out a lot.

the NRA protects the rights of gun owners from being infringed upon how do you think after the clinton administration congress shifted to republican control? dems got outted because they voted for AWB and 9/11 happened, plus Lapierre has a point instead of blaming gun owners and guns themselves why not look into the Social issues (Poverty, the Economy, Education, I hate to say this because i'm a hypocrite violent media. Obama should look into that instead of infringing rights when he gets a cushy security detail for the rest of his fucking life.

At 1/18/13 09:02 PM, Feoric wrote:
Are we really going to ponder why the children of the President of the United States has armed security in their schools, and why the children of Joe Schmoe from Bumblefuck, USA likely does not? Is the answer to this question not blatantly obvious?

Sorry, the president's life, nor the life of his children, are more important than any other Americans. He's not a king, he's a public servant, and any life is just as valuable as his.